The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-01-11

preference TO advantage to any partic-
ular locality. The requirement OF the
fourth section then is that, as between
shipments Of the eame kind, in the
same direction, over the same line,
and made under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions, a
greater sum shall not be charged for q
shorter than for a longer haul when
the shorter comprises part Of the
longer haul, not that a higher
rate shall not be charged
per mile, but that a greater
aggregate sum shall not be charged.
The limitations placed upon the pro-
hibition that is made are verv signif-
can't, and they must not be over
looked. They require that in deter
mining the sums that may be charged
for a short as compared with a long
distance the requirement must be
made:
l. Between shipments OF like kind
of property.
2. Under substantially similar cir
cumstances and conditions.
8. Over the same linee.
4. In the came direction.
5. When the shorter is included
within the longer distance.
When the act is to be applied in
any given case to measure the charge
that may be made for any distance ss
compared with the longer distance, all
the limitations must bs taken into ac-
count and they must all apply 10 the
case, not three or four of them, but
all of them. The first, fourth and
fifth of theeei Illustrations do not appear
to call for any limitations, but the
second and third may need some ex-
PLANTATION. AS l understand them,
the words circumstances and condi-
tions" mean the conditions that gov
ern railway traffic and the circum-
stances under which it ia transported.
To my mind thess words are full of
meaning. They comprehend all the
circumstances and conditions that
may justify differences in rates,
such as competition with other
railroads and water routes, the volume
and character of business at different
points, the difference in terminal ex-
penses, and the cost of service in each
case. II the words used were ''the
same circumsta noes and conditions"
ingenious railway gentlemen would
be able to show that the circumstances
and conditions were never exactly the
came in any two cases. And they
might also be able to show that they
we're of 'similpr, il that was the word
used. But the words Substantially
similar" impart enough latitude to
the comparison to enable the courts
to exercise a sound discretion and
common sense in passing upon cases
that may arise. So far as any n
railroad company is concerned, there
fore, the sum which it may charge for
a haul from one end of its railroad to
the other end becomes the maximum
amount 1t can charge for any shorter
haul over that road in the same
direction and under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions
when the shorter distance is includsd
within the longer. But the question
| that seems to trouble those who OBJ
ject to the section is whether the
maximum thus fixed is the amount
which a railroad company charges
upon shipments originating at and des-
tined to points upon its own read, or
whether the maximum is the sum
which it accepts as its share of q
through rate upon shipments passing
over its road which originate at or are
destined to points upon another road.
1t seems clear to me that there can be
but one answer 10 that question. In
the first place the measure of the
charge that may be made for the
shorter distance is the sum that is
charged for a longer distance over the
same line, and under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions.
The rate fixed by railroad companies
between points upon its W road are
clearly rates upon one line or, in the
terms of the bill, "the same line" A
railroad company can make and
control the rates upon its own road,
and the section says that in making
such rates the short haul principle
shall be observed, A railroad COM
pany cannot control rates over the
roads Of another company. But,
when two or more companies unite in
making oint rates yer their respec-
tive roads they become in the eye Of
this bill one line, and this section
says that the short haul principle
must be observed in making rates
over that line, the two or more roads
composing it being, within the mean
ing of that section, the same line 80
far as such joint rates are concerned.
The word railroad is used throughout
the bill, and the word line is used
only in this section. The courts will
be bound to assume that the word
line means something different from
the word railroad, or it would not
have been used in this one instance,
when the word railroad would nstu-
rally have been used if something diff.
feIent had not been intended. The
word line means q railroad or q com.
bination Of railroads. 1t means a route.
Section z Of the bill requires the car
rage of freights to be treated as one
continuous carrisgs from the place oil
shipment to the place of destination
And this could not be done in the case
of shipments over connecting roads il
the word used in this section was rail.
road, instead OF line. The Joint through
rates which are made by two or mora
railroad companies between points
upon their respective roads are made
over an entirely different and distinct
line from that over which any one ofthe
companies individually msses rates.
And they are also made under differ.
emit circumstances and conditions from
those which govern and determine
rates made over a single railroad. The
two transactions are separate aud dis.
tinct, neither being necessarily gov.
erned by the other. Furthermore, the
making Of joint through rstes is spe-
officially recognized by the bill in the
section requiring publicity of rates,
and nowhere in the bill can anything
be found in relation to the division Of
a Joint tate by connecting rcads. !
am satisfied, therefore, that the only
construction that is warranted by the
language Of the settion is the one
have given il, and that instead of re-
curing rates to be measured by the
percentage Of q through rate which q